85 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
It is, I think, perfectly reasonable to say that I'm not doing something because I want praise and acclamation. Give that I'm talking about other people's reactions to me, then why can't I say that I don't want their praise?
Now, of course, I don't know if 'steven' is your real name - not that there's a problem with that! What's interesting is that your pseudonym is a 'real' name, so unlikely to get the same kind of response as a more overt pseudonym.
I see the Bible as the basis of our understanding of God and salvation. The authority of Scripture is thus fundamental to the basis of Christian theology. That's not to say that other things can't inform that theology, but the basis is from the Bible. The Church of England is very good at expressing the correct way of thinking about this; canon A3 (1), for example ends with 'is agreeable to the Word of God': The Book of Common Prayer is consistent with the Bible, but sits under its authority.
My recent post What's in a name?
I still see no source to your assertions - though you seem quite happy to treat me as a real person by commenting on my blog.
The thing is, I don't really care whether you are the 'real' Canon Andrew Godsall, or not. Generally, it makes very little difference to the validity of your opinion - unless you are talking about issues in which being a Canon of the Church of England has an impact. Identity on the internet is a very malleable thing - what I'm interested in is opinion and discussion.
Let me extend the argument a bit. You post as Canon Andrew Godsall. Assuming that you are the Canon Andrew Godsall, do I take the views you express to be representative of that of the Diocese of Exeter? By posting with your title, you make that statement, even if you don't intend to.
I'm pretty sure that's a decent working definition of syncretism!
Your logic seems to be: there is only one God, therefore there can be no such thing as idolatry; to worship any god is in some way worshiping the one true God. That position is the 'all paths lead to God' of universalism, and that's not what the Bible says. From the beginning, the one true creator God commands our sole worship.
If this was not a serious issue, why would it be such a big deal through out the whole of the Bible. God's people are called to worship God alone, not to worship 'God and...'. If the early Christians had been able to worship God and the Roman Gods, they wouldn't have been killed. If Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego had been able to worship God and Nebuchadnezzar, they wouldn't have been thrown into the fiery furnace, etc. etc. We can't have 'God and...', we can only have 'God alone'.
I suspect the Episcopalians and the tribal representatives may well have gone home thinking that their ceremony was just as valid as the others - that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you're sincere, that all paths lead to the same God. Neither of that is the case.
There maybe 'cheerful baptisms' and the good works you mention are taking place. In to what are people being baptised and confirmed, to which god to the good works point? If they don't look to Jesus who said, 'No one comes to the Father except through me.' is their faith a real hope, or a faith in nothing?
My recent post What's in a name?
How about if I call you, and check that you are who you say you are. It still doesn't tell me who you are - all it does is tell me that you use the same name. Identity on the internet is a very nebulous thing.